California Alert.. SKSs now in danger...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Also, how on earth is it that my 10 round SKS is in danger, but my perfectly legal SU-16CA that can take 30 round mags is NOT in danger?
Click to expand...


It is in danger. You should have added 'yet' at the end of the sentence. Give Lockyer time to get to it. Single shot pellet rifles are in danger in case you have spotted the trend. Bows and arrows are in danger. He's watching Britain and is envious. Knives and slingshots are in danger.

He dreams of the day that possession of a spit ball and a soda straw is a felony.
 
Agreed - have seen it first-hand

' I used to live in Katy TX and while they are gun friendly, the Mexicans have already taken over there. I have no problem with Mexicans really, it is just that when there are too many of them, they turn a place into Mexico. Why leave Mexico just to turn where to go to into the same place? I thought they left for a better place, why bring the bad things with you?'

Because the place they left doesn't have;
free medical
free school
subsidized housing
free school lunches
Aid to dependent children

The list is almost endless and encompasses almost EVERY
social program ever passed.

So, come to the good ol' U.S., bring your 'culture' and have
a better life living in an area where for all intents and
purposes is just like where you left ( signs, language,
customs etc. ) EXCEPT a LOT more benefits ( aka $$$$ ).

I too have no problems with ANYONE coming here LEGALLY

BUT -

Come here to become an American, not to change America
into a clone of what you left behind !!!!!!
 
Let's get one thing straight, "Mexicans" aren't ruining California, and have been here since before there ever was a USA. Illegal immigrants, on the other hand...

And entitlement is hardly a racial thing. We got loads of Euro, Afro, and Asian immigrants who want their hand-out, American values be damned, and plenty of "white" folks who want to sponge off the system, too.

It is in danger. You should have added 'yet' at the end of the sentence. Give Lockyer time to get to it.
Click to expand...

I agree, but I am not sure why the OLL guys aren't mentioning the SU-16CA as being in danger. Those things have been selling like hotcakes since it is the closest thing to a det-mag AR you can legally buy here. I don't understand why the OLL guys are just mentioning the SKS and not the SU-16. The DSA CA rifles I can understand, as those are more akin to the fixed mag ARs that got this ball rolling. The SKS is more like the Garand, and the SU-16 is sort of an end run around the current rules, (Provided you already have AR mags.)

Really, though like you said, all semi-autos are in danger. Pumps and bolts are probably not in danger just as a logistical matter of being too far down the incremental ban list for Lockyer to get to before his time is up. I am sure he is right along Feinstein in regards to a total ban.
 
The reason why the SKS could (perhaps) be in danger is that "SKS with detachable magazine" is a banned assault weapon under orig Roberti-Roos law. Changes to CCR 978.20 (actually, this is now renumbered) regulatory definitions which redefine issues surrounding 'detachable magazine' and 'capacity to accept' may or may not affect SKSes.

If this comes into play we may again have interesting Harrott issues regarding SKSes. "SKS with detachable magazine" is the only Roberti-Roos gun somewhat defined by feature (everything else is make/model or a banned 'series' in Roberti-Roos.)

While Harrott revolved solely around AR and AK 'series' membership and their having to be specifically listed to be considered banned by name (as opposed by feature configuration), many, many SKSes are really not SKSes and are 'Yugo 59/66' or Type 56 etc. etc. Given the long import history of SKSes, the various 'makes' and 'models', and the frequeint sporterization of these rifles beyond recognition, it could be argued that "SKS" is really a 'series' term also, and that similar Harrott listing requirements could apply to SKS-like rifles. Thus, "SKS with detachable magazine" might well not apply to non-Russian rifles.

The problem is that while these regulatory definitions will likely be restricted in their scope to applicability to the generic definitions of assault weapon in PC 12276.1, it is not fully clear what 'detachable magazine' definition is used by the Roberti-Roos-banned 'SKS with detachable magazine'.

Contrary to panicky folks in CA, this prospective regulatory redefinition cannot affect otherwise-legal rifles that already have detachable magazines and which are not considered California assault weapons. M1As without flash hiders, Mini 14s without flash hiders, SU16s, Remmy 7400s, etc. The statutory law allows semiauto centerfire rifles to have detachable magazines as long as they don't have 'evil features' (flash hider, pistol grip, folding, thumbhole or telescoping stock, forward pistol grip or grenade launcher). The DOJ cannot change this statutory definition.

Aside from the SKS issue, the open issue is that if DOJ manages to change this regulatory definition and get it past OAL (Office of Administrative Law) the side effects (besides SKS) will also be interesting: this means that rifles like fixed-mag ARs will involuntarily transition into assault weapons status since the owners had legally-owned, legally-acquired/built rifles before the DOJ action. This means that the DOJ must open a registration period for these new assault weapons, allowing folks to then remove the fixed magazine :)

The DOJ may just have dug themselves a nice hole :)


Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA
 
Last edited:
This means that the DOJ must open a registration period for these new assault weapons, allowing folks to then remove the fixed magazine
Click to expand...

Bill, I thought the Feb. memo showed the DOJ's intention to ban them while not allowing people to add any "evil" features even after registration ("Cat-4").
 
Incrementalism, that is infringe on the 2nd Amendment a small bit at a time and you have CA. CA is a battle lost in my opinion. The State legislature is just too far to the left and there are not enough good people remaining in the state to carry on the fight.

I departed from CA on July 2, 2005, for a variety of reasons, but their freedom sucking gun laws were in the top 5 on my list.

Why I left CA.......

1. Long commute to work on overcrowded freeways.
2. Too many illegal aliens.
3. Rotten gun laws.
4. Taxes of every type and too high at that.
5. Crumbling infrastructure, roads, power grid, etc.

I don't even miss the place a bit:neener:
 
billwiese wrote:
This means that the DOJ must open a registration period for these new assault weapons, allowing folks to then remove the fixed magazine.
Click to expand...

Creeping Incrementalism wrote:
Bill, I thought the Feb. memo showed the DOJ's intention to ban them while not allowing people to add any "evil" features even after registration ("Cat-4").
Click to expand...

The Category 4 memo was shot down very publicly on Calguns.Net by my rebuttal a few days after issuance. It may have been just issued to creat F.U.D. but there was no legal authority to do much of anything in that memo (a new category of AWs with more restrictions, revoking AW registration _after_ an arrest or inqury, etc.) I sent off a 15+ page rebuttal to a noted gun lawyer (NRA and these guys were a bit behind the pace and didn't know that so many off-list lowers had been sold or some of the issues surrounding them) and I think they had a chat w/DOJ.

That's why they're doing this now. If they did a Cat 4 w/registration, we'd all have gripped detachable mag ARs by now :)

Gotta keep backing them into a corner each cycle. The DOJ needs to give the appearance of activity until the last gasp ("we had no further legal recourse...")


Bill Wiese
San Jose
 
Yup.. I see your exact reasoning. This is why I argued on calguns that this new definition wont affect SKS's. Any reasonable person would agree that the SKS's fixed magazine is permanently installed. Now an off-list lower whose magazine can easily be removed with a small tool probably wouldnt be considered permanent by a reasonable person.
 
What strikes me as funny and sad at the same time is that these laws based on cosmetic features HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE LETHALITY OF THE WEAPON!

And you cannot address the lethality of the weapon directly because that defeats the whole purpose of a weapon.

I think it's time to challenge these laws on a legal basis of being arbitrary, capricous and not based on any rational evidence of increased safety.
 
If they do get this to pass, will it set precident for banning firearms which can be easily converted to accept the other 'Assult' features?

If it can easily accept a flashhider?

If it can easily accept a pistol grip?

Its rather troubling
 
Anyone know anything? I've been looking online and haven't found anything yet.
 
what is the smallest calliber that would be considerd an assult rifle are carbines in danger to or detachable magazines or barrels less than 16":uhoh:
also is a semi atuo 40s&w carbine considerd an assult rifle because i was realy looking into a pc4
 
Anteater--
you cannot have a barrel less than 16" on any long-gun. So if it isn't considered a handgun and the barrel is less than 16", take an torch to it and turn it into art...the warden may go easy on you.

As far as what's an assault weapon, anything of any caliber that's a semi-auto centerfire long-gun has to have features compatible with the assault weapon ban. The PC4 is a semi-auto centerfire rifle since S&W40 rounds are centerfire. It accepts detachable magazines and therefore may not have any additional evil-cool features. Therefore you cannot add a pistol-grip or thumbhole stock to it without turning it into an illegal assault weapon.

The one way out to have an evil-cool pistol grip on a centerfire rifle was if your magazine is fixed like most yugo SKSs or cali-legal FALs/AR-15s that feed via stripper clips. The danger here is that if this regulation passes and is interpreted the way we are fearing...you would have to revert to the traditional rifle-stock since "fixed magazines" would be considered "potentially detachable".

If this law passes a PC4 would still be fine since it has a traditional rifle stock like M1As and Keltec SU-16CAs.

SKSs would be okay only if they had a traditional rifle-stock, but pistolgripped fixedmag SKSs/FALs/and AR-15s would all be illegal.

.22 lr semi-auto long-guns can have all the evil features they want (except for > 10 round mags) since they are rimfire and not under the semi-auto centerfire assault weapon ban... but as Byron Quick pointed out...the operative word is "yet"
 
i was not going to add anything to it ok maby a sling
its still legal because it is 1/4 an inch to long to be elegal
its a 16 1/4inch barrel barely legal

thanks Mr.V.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
California ALERT! Semi-autos in danger!
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
143
Views
13K
LAK Supply
L
LiveLife
  • Locked
Complying with new California laws
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
C
  • Locked
Cal DOJ ambushes CA fixed-mag lower owners
2
Replies
48
Views
9K
Manedwolf
M
J
  • Locked
California DOJ to return confiscated rifles.
2
Replies
38
Views
3K
HunterGatherer
H
H
  • Locked
Georgia AWB proposed
Replies
12
Views
748
Cliff
C
Back
Top